MILTON AND 
THE SUFFOLK RESOLVES 

'By 
LAURISTON L. SCAIFE 



Milton Historical Society 
1921 



.S2.7 



Gift 

Sooiety 

OCT iJlSIl 



7Aomas Todd (Company 

PRINTERS 

'Bouon 



<:JMiIton and the Suffolk T^solves 



PART I 

ON Saint Valentine's day following the Armis- 
tice,* President Wilson, at a plenary session of 
the Peace Conference in Paris, presented to the 
world the Covenant of the League of Nations. That 
night he left Paris for a hurried visit to Washington, 
bringing with him a copy of the Covenant, which, how- 
ever, had been cabled at once to America. In the Senate 
it was received with some unfavorable mutterings ; so 
the President, before reaching America, requested that 
there be no discussion of the Covenant until after his 
return and explanation; saying, in effect, that there were 
good reasons even for the "verbiage" of the document. 

His explanation to the Senatorial Committee in the 
ensuing conference at the White House was not satis- 
factory to all of them. Two — Senators Lodge and 
Knox — promptly addressed the Senate in opposition to 
the Covenant before the President left Washington on 
his second trip to Paris, — Senator Lodge speaking on 
February 28th and Senator Knox on March ist. Both of 
them, in discussing the Covenant, went back to the early 
days of our history, and claimed that the provisions of 
the League were contrary to the fundamental and tradi- 
tional principles and policies of our government as ad- 
vocated by Washington, Jefferson, Monroe, and others 
of the fathers of our Republic. 

On his way back to Paris, on March 6, 19 19, Presi- 
dent Wilson made a good-bye address at the Metropoli- 
tan Opera House in New York. There he notified his 
League opponents of the extent to which he would go 

• February 14, 1 9 19. 

[3] 



in his effort to break down or circumvent the opposition 
in the Senate to his Covenant, saying: "When that 
treaty comes back, gentlemen on this side will find the 
Covenant not only in it, but so many threads of the 
treaty tied to the Covenant that you cannot dissect 
the Covenant from the treaty without destroying the 
whole vital structure." 

However, the President desired to prevail, not merely 
by threat, but by winning adherents to his League; and 
in this desire he combatted the plea of the opposition 
that the League was contrary to the principles and poli- 
cies of Washington and other founders of our republic. 
As a step, and a most important one, in this effort, the 
President, in this address of March 6th, said : 

"It (the United States) was set up for the benefit of 
mankind.'^ 

Later, in the same address, he said : 

"Take an Individual American and you may often find 
him selfish, and confined to his special Interests; but take 
the American in the mass and he is willing to die for 
an idea. The sweet revenge, therefore, is this, that we 
believed in righteousness, and now we are ready to make 
the supreme sacrifice for It, the supreme sacrifice of 
throwing in our fortunes with the fortunes of men 
everywhere." 

In his war message of April 2, 191 7, he had said: 

"A steadfast concert for peace can never be main- 
tained except by a partnership of democratic nations. . . . 
Only free peoples can hold their purpose and their 
honor steady to a common end and prefer the interests 
of mankind to any narrow Interest of their own." 

In Paris, in his initiation address as a newly-made 
member of the Institute of France, he said, speaking 
of the birth of our nation: 

"We came into the world consecrated to liberty, and 
whenever we see the cause of liberty imperiled, we are 

[4] 



ready to cast in our lot in common with the lot of those 
whose liberty is threatened." 

In short, throughout his advocacy of the League of 
Nations, patriotism was ignored or disparaged, and in- 
ternationalism was advocated; and to strengthen this 
advocacy, it was represented that the object of our revo- 
lutionary struggle was the benefit of mankind at large, 
and not simply the benefit of the colonists and the future 
inhabitants of our country. 

Thus was a grave historical question of the highest 
Importance thrust Into the forefront of the struggle over 
the League of Nations. 

Citizens were urged to examine and study for them- 
selves the matter of the League of Nations as the most 
Important subject ever presented In the history of the 
country. Some of us tried to do so; and early In the 
study met this question as to whether our forefathers 
fought for and established this government simply for 
themselves and their posterity, or for the benefit of man- 
kind at large. 

In the course of my preliminary reading I happened 
across the statement that Washington was commissioned 
as General expressly to defend "American liberty"; and 
the writer suggested the desirability. In studying our 
history, of going directly back to the original records, 
particularly to the "Journals of the Continental Congress" 
of 1774— 1775, as furnishing "the genetic record" of 
our country. Resorting to this source. It was found most 
interesting. 

Looking up at once the matter of Washington's com- 
mission as General and Commander-in-chief, the record 
showed that on the day the Battle of Bunker Hill was 
being fought, — June 17, 1775, — the delegates to the 
Continental Congress, sitting in Philadelphia, were de- 
bating and settling the terms and Instructions to be 
set forth in the Commission of George Washington, 

[5] 



whom they had unanimously elected Commander-in- 
chief. The commission, as there determined, appointed 
him "to be General and Commander-in-chief of the army 
of the United Colonies, and of all the forces now raised, 
or to be raised by them, and of all others who shall 
voluntarily offer their service, and join the said army 
for the Defence of American Liberty, and for repelling 
every hostile invasion thereof^ 

American Liberty was the subject matter of the con- 
test, and the fact was emphasized by the use of the word 
"thereof" following the words "hostile invasion." The 
military forces were to repel the invasion, not primarily 
of America, but of American liberty. 

On the same day they passed a resolution somewhat 
amplifying the language in reference to American lib- 
erty, extending it from the term, — "for the defence of 
American liberty," — to the term, — -"for the maintenance 
and preservation of American liberty." 

What did the Continental Congress mean by Ameri- 
can liberty? 

The records of that body furnish the authoritative 
answer. 

As later in the case of the Convention which framed 
the constitution, it was intended that the proceedings of 
the Continental Congress be kept secret; but during the 
administration of President John Adams, Congress au- 
thorized a publication of 400 copies of the "Journals 
of Congress," i. e., of the Continental Congress. 

The record in the first volume is very meager as to 
many desirable particulars; yet at times it is extended 
to the fullest details. It shows that the Congress began 
its work on Monday, September 5th, 1774, in Philadel- 
phia, where "a number of the delegates, chosen and 
appointed by the several colonies and provinces in North 
America, . . . assembled at the Carpenters Hall." 

It gives the names of the delegates then present, — 
[6] 



names which will remain immortal while American in- 
dependence survives. 

The only business recorded for the first day was the 
choice of a President, Peyton Randolph, of Virginia, 
and Secretary, Charles Thompson, and the production, 
reading, and approval of the credentials of the dele- 
gates. Meager as is the day's record in other respects, 
these credentials are set forth in full; and they tell, better 
than any set speeches would do, why and for what ends 
these delegates were there. 

The New Hampshire delegates were authorized "to 
attend and assist in the General Congress of delegates 
from the other colonies, ... to devise, consult, and 
adopt such measures as may have the most liicely tendency 
to extricate the colonies from their present difficulties; 
to secure and perpetuate their rights, liberties, and privi- 
leges, and to restore that peace, harmony, and mutual 
confidence which once happily subsisted between the 
parent country and her colonies." 

The Massachusetts credential was somewhat longer; 
but the delegates were to aid in "the recovery and es- 
tablishment of their just rights and liberties, . . . and 
the restoration of union and harmony between Great 
Britain and her colonies, most ardently desired by all 
good men." 

The object of Rhode Island was likewise "to establish 
the rights and liberties of the colonies, upon a just and 
solid foundation." 

Without going through the entire list, it may be noted 
that Maryland's object was tersely stated, — "to effect 
one general plan of conduct, operating on the commer- 
cial connection of the colonies with the mother country, 
for the relief of Boston, and preservation of American 
liberty." 

The North Carolina delegation did not appear until 
[7] 



September 14th. Their credential indicates and approves 
of the ground and purposes of the Congress: 

. . . "*Resolved, That we approve of the proposal of 
a general Congress ... to take such measures as they 
may deem prudent to effect the purpose of describing 
with certainty the rights of Americans, repairing the 
breach made in those rights, and for guarding them for 
the future from any such violation done under the sanc- 
tion of public authority." 

It is to be noted that the purpose was to begin by 
"describing with certainty the rights of Americans.'^ The 
"rights" included their liberty. 

The Congress promptly proceeded to carry out this 
program. In fact, its proceedings to this end had begun 
on the very day after the formal opening session. The 
record of September 6th shows that, immediately after 
establishing rules of procedure and providing for secrecy, 
it was resolved that two committees be appointed; the 
first, "to state the rights of the colonies in general, the 
several instances in which those rights are violated or 
infringed, and the means most proper to be pursued for 
obtaining a restoration of them." 

The second committee were "to examine and report 
the several statutes, which affect the trades and manu- 
factures of the colonies." 

These committees were duly appointed, and went to 
work to perform their respective duties. Obviously 
nothing of importance could be done until they reported 
to the Congress, which met from day to day and ad- 
journed to await the expected reports. The Journal 
shows but little aside from further credentials from 
newly arrived delegates until Saturday, September 17th. 
Under that date the record says: "The Resolutions en- 
tered into by the delegates from the several towns and 
districts in the County of Suffolk, in the province of the 

•Vol. ,,p. .3. 

[8] 



Massachusetts bay . . . were laid before the Congress, 
and are as follows:" 

The Resolutions there set forth in full are the so-called 
"Suffolk Resolves." The record shows that they had 
been "unanimously voted" in Milton on September 9th, 
eight days before they were presented to the Congress. 

Thus the investigation of American Liberty led directly 
to the fact that the very first document discussing that 
subject which appears in the "Journals of the Conti- 
nental Congress" went there from Miltou. 

The chaotic conditions now prevailing throughout the 
world (our own country included) have brought con- 
viction that a present-day realization of the truths of 
our own fundamental history is an essential of our pres- 
ent and future well-being and security. So, in order to 
awaken, if possible, at least a local interest in a renewed 
study of our foundations, it seems worth while to review 
once more, for the Milton Historical Society, something 
of the relation which the Suffolk Resolves bore to the 
struggle which resulted in our independence. This re- 
lation has been well known and forgotten many times 
during the five generations which have passed since the 
Continental Congress assembled in Philadelphia in 1774; 
but it is hoped that it may add to the interest of such 
review to show, as above, that recent events have given 
renewed importance to the history of our evolution from 
Colonialism to self-government. 

There had been an unsuccessful attempt to hold a 
meeting of Suffolk delegates in Stoughton in April, 1774. 
Such a meeting was finally held in Dedham on the 
following September 6th, when Dr. Joseph Warren was 
appointed chairman of a committee to draw suitable 
resolutions and present them at an adjourned meeting 
to be held in Milton on September 9th. The adjourned 
meeting was held in Milton on that date, and the 
Suffolk Resolves were there presented, discussed, and 

[9] 



adopted. As stated in a footnote in Ford's edition of 
the "Journals of the Continental Congress" (Vol. i, 
P- 39)) "they were sent express to Congress by Paul 
Revere, who reached Philadelphia on Friday, Septem- 
ber 1 6th, and delivered them to the Massachusetts dele- 
gates." Turning to the Diary of John Adams (Vol. 2, 
p. 380), under date of September 17, 1774, we find the 
following: 

"17. Saturday. This was one of the happiest days 
of my life. In Congress we had generous, noble senti- 
ments, and manly eloquence. This day convinced me that 
America will support [the] Massachusetts or perish with 
her!" 

This is accompanied by a footnote saying: 

"On this day the celebrated resolutions of Suffolk 
County in Massachusetts had been laid before Congress, 
and resolutions were adopted by the Congress expres- 
sive of sympathy and support. See the Journals." 

Resorting to the Journals we find that, on the same 
day, the Congress ordered that the resolutions of the Con- 
gress, "together with the resolutions of the County of 
Suffolk, be published in the newspapers." 

It is to be borne in mind that while the "Journals of the 
Congress" are now open to the world, they were then 
"secret." Going back to the footnote in John Adams's 
Diary (Vol. 2, p. 380), we find a quotation from a letter 
by John Adams to his wife dated the day after the intro- 
duction and action upon the Suffolk Resolves, to wit: 

"The proceedings of the Congress are all a profound 
secret as ' yet, except two votes passed yesterday and 
ordered to be printed. You ivill see them from every 
quarter. These votes were passed in full Congress with 
perfect unanimity." 

(The italics are the present writer's.) 

Thus we see that what the Milton meeting of the Suf- 
folk delegates adopted and sent express by Paul Revere 
[10] 



to the Congress in Philadelphia received the approval of 
every member of the Continental Congress, including the 
representative men from not only widely separated but 
also widely differing colonies and communities; men not 
only likely to differ, but who did actually differ with one 
another on some of the most vital points involved in the 
controversy. It surely was most helpful to the progress 
of the great cause then on trial between Great Britain 
and her American Colonies that the first important paper 
presented to the Congress was one which met with instant 
support and unanimity. It is worth remembering that 
George Washington and Patrick Henry and both of the 
South Carolina Rutledges, John and Edward, and Samuel 
Chase and John Jay and Roger Sherman and Silas Deane 
all concurred with John and Samuel Adams in approving 
the Suffolk Resolves and commending the course of ac- 
tion there laid down, and in putting aside, for the mo- 
ment, the rule of secrecy which had been adopted, in 
making these Resolves public and publishing them in de- 
tail, broadcast, with the seal of the unanimous approval 
of the entire Congress. Here is conclusive evidence of 
the importance as estimated by the entire membership of 
the Congress of this initial stroke emanating from Milton. 

A similar estimate of importance coming contempo- 
raneously from the other side of the Atlantic is shown in 
the brief though admirable article on the Suffolk Re- 
solves in Teele's "History of Milton" (p. 429), where 
the following appears as a quotation from the British 
press of the day: 

"The friends of America have the satisfaction to learn 
that the Resolves of the late Continental Congress re- 
specting the votes of the County of Suffolk published 
in the English papers here not only surprised, but con- 
founded the ministry, as by it they perceive the Union 
of the Colonies to be complete, and their present menaces 
only mark their despair." 

[II] 



These Resolves have been examined and analyzed in 
history. One interesting treatment of them appears in 
Pitkin's "History of the United States" (Vol. i, pp. 
279—280). John Fiske, in his work on the "American 
Revolution" (Vol. i, pp. 127—128), gives an epitome 
of them and notes that they were enthusiastically in- 
dorsed by the Congress. Alden Bradford quotes them 
in full in his "History of Massachusetts" from 1764 
to July, 1775, p. 339. 

The Suffolk Resolves were followed by other notable 
documents issued by the Continental Congress, includ- 
ing the Statement of Violations of Rights, Address to 
the People of Great Britain, Memorial to the Inhabi- 
tants of Quebec, Petition to the King, and Declaration 
on Taking Arms. Not alone in America did these 
papers create a tremendous impression. Lord Chatham 
praised them so highly in the House of Lords that his 
praise has been noted by writers on both sides of the 
Atlantic. 

Washington Irving in his "Life of George Washing- 
ton" says (Vol. i, pp. 404-405) : 

"The papers issued by it [the Continental Congress] 
have deservedly been pronounced masterpieces of prac- 
tical talent and political wisdom. Chatham, when speak- 
ing on the subject in the House of Lords, could not 
restrain his enthusiasm. 'When your lordships,' said he, 
'look at the papers transmitted to us from America; when 
you consider their decency, firmness, and wisdom, you 
cannot but respect their cause, and wish to make it your 
own. For myself, I must declare and avow that, in the 
master states of the world, I know not the people, or 
senate, who, in such a complication of difficult circum- 
stances, can stand in preference to the delegates of Amer- 
ica assembled in General Congress at Philadelphia.' " 

Almost the same language may be found in Knight's 
"History of England" (Vol. 6, p. 343), where the quota- 
[12] 



tion from Lord Chatham's speech closes with the words, 
"I trust it is obvious to your lordships that all attempts 
to impose servitude upon such men, to establish despotism 
over such a mighty continental nation, must be vain, must 
be fatal." 

This conclusion was reached from Lord Chatham's 
high estimate of the state papers emanating from the 
Continental Congress. 

It has already been noted that the first of these papers 
was the Suffolk Resolves, upon which the Congress had 
set the stamp of their unanimous approval. It seems 
worth while to see if these Resolves bore any appreciable 
relation to the later papers. 

We have also seen that between the opening of the 
Congress and the presentation there of the Suffolk Re- 
solves, the Congress was awaiting, from day to day, the 
reports of the two important committees upon which the 
Congress would, presumedly, base its course of action. 
The "Journals of Congress" show neither the work in 
committee nor the speeches in the Congress. For informa- 
tion as to these resort must be had to such outside sources 
as exist. 

The most fruitful of these sources, apparently, are the 
"Life and Works of John Adams" and the "Correspond- 
ence" between John Adams and his wife. 

In Vol. II of Adams's "Life and Works" we find several 
pages of Notes of the Debates of the Congress on Sep- 
tember 8, 1774 (pp. 370-373). Here he shows that 
Colonel Lee of Virginia was claiming that our "rights were 
built on a fourfold foundation; on nature, on the British 
constitution, on charters, and on immemorial usage." 
Mr. John Rutledge agreed that our claims were founded 
on the British constitution, but denied they were founded 
on the laws of nature. Other delegates also differed 
materially from Colonel Lee as to the proper basis of our 
rights and claims. 

[13] 



Following the extracts from the Adams diary is an 
"Extract from the Autobiography" [of John Adams] 
(see Vol. II of "Life and Works," p. 373 ) . It seems that 
this statement was written from memory in 1804. 

Speaking of the work in these committees, he says (p. 

373): 

"It would be endless to attempt even an abridgment of 
the discussions in this committee, which met regularly 
every morning for many days successively, till it became 
an object of jealousy to all the other members of Congress. 
. . . The two points which labored the most were : 

1. Whether we should recur to the law of nature, as 
well as to the British constitution, and our American char- 
ters and grants. ... I was very strenuous for retain- 
ing and insisting on it, as a resource to which we might 
be driven by Parliament much sooner than we were aware. 

2. The other great question was, what authority we should 
concede to Parliament; whether we should deny the au- 
thority of Parliament in all cases, etc. . . . These dis- 
cussions spun into great length, and nothing was de- 
cided. . . . 

"After a multitude of motions had been made, dis- 
cussed, negatived, it seemed as if we should never agree 
upon anything. Mr. John Rutledge of South Carolina, 
. . . addressing himself to me, was pleased to say, 
'Adams, we must agree upon something; you appear to be 
as familiar with the subject as any of us; and I like your 
expressions, — "the necessity of the case," and "excluding 
all ideas of taxation, external and internal;" I have a great 
opinion of that same idea of the necessity of the case, and 
I am determined against all taxation for revenue. Come, 
take the pen and see if you can't produce something that 
will unite us.' 

"Some others of the committee seconding Mr. Rutledge, 
I took a sheet of paper and drew up an article. When it 
was read, I believe not one of the committee was fully 

[14] 



satisfied with It ; but they all soon acknowledged that there 
was no hope of hitting on anything in which we could 
all agree with more satisfaction. 

"All these five agreed to this, and upon this depended 
the union of the Colonies." 

Thus we find that there was no natural unanimity be- 
tween the delegates to the Congress. The differences had 
to be thrashed out. Ideals could not always be made 
practicable, but sometimes had to be pared down or aban- 
doned to meet the necessity of the case. The matters 
were first considered in subcommittee, then in full com- 
mittee, and finally the Statement of Violation of Rights is 
set forth in the Journals under date of October 14, 1774 
(Ford's ed., pp. 63-73). Two drafts appear in parallel 
columns ; the first being "Sullivan's Draught" ; the second 
containing the 4th Resolution as prepared by John Adams, 
the difficulties contained in which were shown above. 

It is interesting to compare the language of the funda- 
mental points in the Suffolk Resolves and in the statement 
issued by the Congress : 

Suffolk Resolves Statement of Violation of 

"3. That the late acts of ^'^^^^ 

the British parliament . . . "That the inhabitants of 

are gross infractions of the English Colonies in 
those rights to which we North America, by the im- 
are justly entitled by [l] mutable laws of nature, the 
the laws of nature, [2] the principles of the English 
British constitution, and constitution, and the sev- 
[3] the charter of the eral charters or compacts, 
province." have the following right." 

"Journals of Congress," 
Ford's ed.. Vol. i, p. 67. 

Having shown the practical identity of the fundamen- 
tals in these two documents, it remains that the Suffolk 

[15] 



Resolves set the mark for what was thrashed out a few 
weeks later in the Continental Congress. 

An examination of these state papers will give some 
insight into why they were so effective. 

The records show that they were prepared and con- 
sidered with great care. The opening sentence in the 
Suffolk Resolves shows that they were "several times 
read, and put paragraph by paragraph," before being 
"unanimously voted." (Journals, p. 32.) 

These Resolves, like the succeeding papers, show the 
"decency, firmness, and wisdom" which Lord Chatham 
recognized as the basis of his high praise. He obviously 
uses the term "decency" in its etymological sense of "being 
fit, suitable, or becoming." Accordingly all these papers 
undertook to show the true relation of the parties to each 
other and to the subject matter. And this they did with 
the "firmness and wisdom" which he also noted. This 
"fitness" of treatment was not accidental. The guiding 
spirits in this movement were not only men of character, 
but men of education. If anybody will take the trouble 
to read what John Adams disclosed as to his own self- 
education, self-training immediately following his gradua- 
tion from Harvard College, he will begin to realize why 
Adams accomplished so much in his early manhood and 
why his services were so much sought after. Likewise 
Thomas Jefferson, notwithstanding his youthfulness, had 
lived a life largely filled with experiences and, through 
reading, study, and contact with men, had mentally ac- 
quired a vast storehouse of experiences of a kind to fit 
him to cope with the important questions of that time. 
Indeed, generally speaking, the men who went to Phila- 
delphia were exceptionally well fitted for their tasks. 

While they were men of marked individuality, and 

therefore strong in their differences, we have seen that 

they were, nevertheless, capable of what we now-a-days 

call "team play." Moreover the results showed that, by 

[16] 



utilizing, in team play, these very differences, a better 
result was produced than would have been attained if the 
sole efforts of any one man, even the best among them, 
had been adopted and followed. This is demonstrated 
in the Ford edition of the "Journals of the Continental 
Congress" by a comparison of the facsimile drafts of some 
of these state papers showing the various alterations and 
elisions, as well as the individual work of some of the 
draftsmen. For example: Washington left Philadel- 
phia on June 21, 1775, to take command of the American 
army at Cambridge. Two days later the Congress 
adopted a Resolution appointing a committee of five "to 
draw up a declaration, to be published by General Wash- 
ington, upon his arrival at the Camp before Boston." 

The members of this committee were John Rutledge, 
William Livingston, Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, and 
Thomas Johnson. The next day (Saturday, June 24th) 
the committee reported a declaration "which was read 
and debated, and referred for further consideration till 
Monday next." On the Monday (June 26th) the mat- 
ter was recommitted, and John Dickinson and Thomas 
Jefferson were added to the committee. 

From that date to July 6th the official record is silent 
in regard to this matter, which does not re-appear upon 
the record till Thursday, July 6th, when the declaration 
was brought into the Congress by the committee, was 
read, was "taken into consideration, and being debated 
by paragraphs, was approved." 

Now it is to be noted that this declaration, begun on 
June 23d, was intended by the resolution to be published 
by General Washington "upon his arrival at the camp 
before Boston." The committee, as originally consti- 
tuted, obviously saw that speed was necessary, and re- 
ported a declaration the next day. If that draft had been 
satisfactory and had been immediately adopted, Wash- 
ington could easily have been overtaken by an express 

[17] 



rider before his arrival in camp, which was not until July 
2d. But the declaration was not finally reported to and 
adopted by the Congress until July 6th, four days after 
Washington's arrival at the appointed destination. 

IV hat had caused this delay? 

The Journal records give no clue; but the valuable foot- 
notes and the various drafts in the Ford edition, written 
from his gleanings in various collateral contemporaneous 
resources, furnish the explanation. 

In Vol. II of Ford's edition of the "Journals of the 
Continental Congress," pp. 128 to 140, we find in parallel 
columns two drafts entitled "Jefferson's Drafts," and two 
copious footnotes on page 128 furnish the explanation. 
These notes condense the information so fittingly that 
the temptation is strong to repeat them both here in full. 

However, the limitations of time and space will be 
observed to the extent of cutting down the reproductions 
here to Note 2, the shorter of the two notes: 

2. "These two papers ['Jefferson's Drafts'] are found 
in the Jefferson Manuscripts in the Library of Congress. 
The second, or later, draft contains some suggested 
changes in the writing of John Dickinson, and bears on 
the last page the following memorandum by Jefferson : 

" '^TyS' June 23. Congress appointed a committee to 
prepare a Declaration to be published by General Wash- 
ington on his arrival at the camp before Boston, to wit, 
J. Rutledge, W. Livingston, Dr. Franklin, Mr. Jay, and 
Mr. Johnson. 

'June 24, a draught was reported. 

" 'June 26, being disliked, it was recommitted and Dr. 
Dickinson and T. Jefferson added to the committee, the 
latter being desired by the commee to draw up a new 
one, he prepared this paper. On a meeting of the com- 
mee J. Dickinson objected that it was too harsh, wanted 
softening, etc., whereupon the commee desired him to 
[18] 



retouch it, which he did in the form which they reported 
July 6, which was adopted by Congress.' 

"Although the Jefferson drafts were never actually 
laid before Congress, they are essential to a proper under- 
standing of the Declaration as finally accepted." 

As stated, the two Jefferson drafts extend from page 
128 to page 140. 

Beginning on page 140, the two remaining drafts ap- 
pear in parallel columns. The left-hand column is headed 
"John Dickinson's Draft," the right one — "Final Form." 

It is the last of these four drafts, the one marked 
"Final Form," which went forth to the world as the 
Declaration on taking arms. I have read all these state 
papers again and again, and to me this document is the 
finest, strongest of the entire number, surpassing even the 
Declaration of Independence. 

These four drafts furnish to the student a wonderful 
opportunity to see the workings of individual minds, and 
of one mind on another; thus showing the advantage of 
team work. This does not mean that such work can 
best be done by large numbers of people. That would 
be impracticable, as was well known long before Lord 
Chatham's time. Lord Bacon in his essay "Of Dispatch" 
says: "There be three parts of business: the preparation, 
the debate or examination, and the perfection. Whereof, 
if you look for dispatch, let the middle only be the work 
of many, and the first and last of few." That was the 
course pursued, with such excellent results, in these 
famous papers. 

Those who, alone or with others, will study these 
papers will, I think, find the hoped-for benefit of studying 
these "genetic records" in preference to the predigested 
pabulum served up by the historians. 

In the final draft of the "Declaration on taking arms," 
reference was made to the results of the French Colonial 
war; and the document went on to say: 

[19] 



"Towards the conclusion of that war, it pleased our 
sovereign to make a change in his counsels. . . . The 
new ministry finding the brave foes of Britain, though 
frequently defeated, yet still contending, took up the un- 
fortunate idea of granting them a hasty peace, and of then 
subduing her faithful friends. 

"These devoted colonies were judged to be in such a 
state, as to present victories without bloodshed, and all 
the easy emoluments of statuteable plunder." 

Whether from the pen of Lloyd George or Clemenceau 
or Woodrow Wilson, can you find any utterance in the 
recent world-war more skillfully and effectively constructed 
than that just quoted? Yet apparently, — though Rut- 
ledge (who had been described by Patrick Henry as the 
most eloquent member of the Continental Congress) and 
Benjamin Franklin and John Jay and Jefferson himself 
had all tried their hands, — it was left to John Dickinson, 
of comparatively inferior fame, to carve out this won- 
derfully condensed and vivid statement of the origin of 
the trouble between Great Britain and her colonies, — a 
statement which was accepted by the committee and ap- 
proved and made public by the entire Congress. 

The more detailed statement (on pp. 145-146) of the 
grievances suffered is made with beautiful simplicity and 
directness. So also is the statement of the efforts made 
to obtain redress and satisfaction. Finally (on p. 153), 
the situation then presented is reached, saying: 

"We are reduced to the alternation of choosing an un- 
conditional submission to the tyranny of irritated minis- 
ters, or resistance by force. The latter is our choice. . . . 
Honor, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to sur- 
render that freedom which we received from our gallant 
ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right 
to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and 
guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretched- 
ness which inevitably awaits them, if we barely entail 
hereditary bondage upon them." 
[20] 



Let us come down to the end : 

"In our own native land in defence of the freedom 
that is our birth-right — and which we ever enjoyed till the 
late violation of it — for the protection of our property, 
acquired solely by the honest industry of our fore-fathers 
and ourselves, against violence actually offered, we have 
taken up arms. We shall lay them down when hostilities 
shall cease on the part of the aggressors, and all danger 
of their being renewed shall be removed, and not before." 
(p. 156.) 

So said John Dickinson and Thomas Jefferson and Ben- 
jamin Franklin and John Rutledge and John Jay in com- 
mittee, and the rest of the delegates in open Congress, 
on the 6th day of July, 1775, to an admiring world of 
which Lord Chatham became the spokesman. 

Had not the Suffolk delegates sent to them from Mil- 
ton, in the Suffolk Resolves, full inspiration for this great 
aftermath? 

Bear carefully in mind the words just quoted from the 
"Declaration on taking arms" while you hear or read these 
words which went forth from Milton : 

"Whereas the power, but not the justice, the vengeance 
but not the wisdom of Great Britain, which of old perse- 
cuted, scourged and exiled our fugitive parents from their 
native shore, now pursues us, their guiltless children, with 
unrelenting severity. And whereas, this, then savage and 
uncultivated desert, was purchased by the toil and treas- 
ure, or acquired by the blood and valor of those our 
venerable progenitors; to us they bequeathed the dear- 
bought inheritance, to our care and protection they con- 
signed it, and the most sacred obligations are upon us 
to transmit the glorious purchase, unfettered by power, 
unclogged with shackles, to our innocent and beloved off- 
spring." 

So much from the preamble. 

The first resolution acknowledged the rightful sover- 
eignty of the King. 

[21] 



The second was : 

"That it is an indispensable duty which we owe to 
God, our country, ourselves and posterity, by all lawful 
ways and means in our power to maintain, defend and 
preserve those civil and religious rights and liberties, for 
which many of our fathers fought, bled and died, and to 
hand them down entire to future generations." 

Is it to be wondered at that, in Adams's letter above 
referred to, he says : 

"The esteem, the affection, the admiration for the 
people of Boston and the Massachusetts, which were ex- 
pressed yesterday, and the fixed determination that they 
should be supported, were enough to melt a heart of 
stone. I saw the tears gush into the eyes of the old grave, 
pacific Quakers of Pennsylvania"? 

The third resolution described broadly the infractions 
of their rights. 

The fourth, comprising only three lines, was the brav- 
est, the greatest, the most inspiring of all, and was sur- 
passed by nothing In the course of the entire revolutionary 
period save only the final act of separation itself by the 
Declaration of Independence. 

Behold this fourth resolution in its simplicity: 

4. "That no obedience is due from this province to 
either or any part of the acts above mentioned, but that 
they be rejected as the attempts of a wicked administra- 
tion to enslave America." 

We may drop down now to the twelfth resolution: 

12. "That during the present hostile appearances on 
the part of Great Britain, notwithstanding the many in- 
sults and oppressions which we most sensibly resent, yet, 
nevertheless, from our affection to his majesty, which we 
have at all times evidenced, we are determined to act 
merely on the defensive, so long as such conduct may be 
vindicated by reason and the principle of self-preservation 
hut no longer." 

[22] 



As our last excerpt we take the eighteenth resolution: 
1 8. "That whereas the universal uneasiness which pre- 
vails among all orders of men, arising from the wicked 
and oppressive measuresof the present administration, may 
influence some unthinking persons to commit outrage upon 
private property; we would heartily recommend to all per- 
sons of this community, not to engage in any routs, riots, 
or licentious attacks upon the properties of any person 
whatsoever, as being subversive of all order and govern- 
ment; but, by a steady, manly, uniform and persevering 
opposition, to convince our enemies, that in a contest so 
important, in a cause so solemn, our conduct shall be such 
as to merit the approbation of the wise, and the admira- 
tion of the brave and the free of every age and of every 
country." 

Thus history shows that the Suffolk Resolves, — framed 
in "words of decency, firmness, and wisdom," — adopted in 
Milton and approved and published by the Congress in 
Philadelphia, furnished both inspiration and guidance 
in the maintenance and preservation of American liberty, 
— upon the firm foundation of law and order. 



[23] 



PART II 

It may be admitted that one of the principal objects of 
this paper was to show that the Town of Milton was and 
is entitled to higher rank among the immortals of the 
Revolution than has been accorded to it. It will be noted 
that the only basis so far suggested for this claim is that 
the act of bringing forth these Resolves was performed 
here. While this basis would have supported such claim 
in much the same way that the signing of the Declaration 
of Independence has conferred lasting renown upon the 
city of Philadelphia, the mere contribution of the place of 
the act, — of what the lawyers call the locus ret acta, — 
did not seem wholly satisfactory. The human touch was 
needed. What, If anything, had the men of Milton to do 
with it? 

Then, too, there was another impediment to complete 
satisfaction. It is true that an ancient building In the 
Town bears upon its front a tablet stating, — "In this Man- 
sion the Suffolk Resolves were adopted"; but it is well 
known locally that the truth of this statement is doubted 
by some of our citizens who should be deemed amongst 
those best qualified to decide upon the matter. 

The desire to learn, if possible, as to the activities of 
the men of Milton leading up to the adoption of the 
Suffolk Resolves, and also to find out more about the dis- 
puted question as to the building where they were adopted, 
caused further investigation before attempting to com- 
plete this paper; and the results are set forth below. 

We know of no record of what occurred at the meeting 
where the Suffolk Resolves were adopted aside from the 
Resolves themselves. In Ford's edition of the "Journals 
of Congress" [Vol. i, p. 37] the names are given of the 
m.embers of a Committee there appointed to present cer- 

[24] 



tain remonstrances to Governor Gage. This list contains 
the names of two Milton men, Col. William Taylor and 
Dr. Samuel Gardiner, but no statement is made as to their 
activities. 

The records of the Town of Milton, however, furnish 
important circumstantial evidence of the actual partici- 
pation of the Town in the making of the Suffolk Resolves. 
The main evidence upon this point is the record of Town 
Meetings held June 27th, 1774, and July 25th, 1774. 

At the June meeting it was 

"Voted to choose a Committee of five persons to con- 
sider & determine upon some proper measures for this 
Town to come into respecting the situation of publick 
affairs, and that sd Committee be enjoined to set forth- 
with, and report as soon as may be." 

Note the strength of the language in the duty placed 
upon the Committee : 

"That sd Committee be enjoined to set forthwith, and 
report as soon as may be." 

Our first inclination was to correct the spelling of the 
word "set" as constituting a small blemish upon the re- 
port. Further consideration and Investigation show, how- 
ever, that it is no blemish, but the use of a word of pre- 
cision giving, and most tersely, both clearness and strength. 
For if the verb "set" is here an intransitive verb, it has 
as one of its meanings : 

"To apply one's self; to undertake earnestly." 

Thus by the simple monosyllable "set," the Committee 
were enjoined "to apply themselves, to undertake seri- 
ously 'forthwith.'" 

After the appointment of the Committee the meeting 
was adjourned "to the 25th day of July next at four 
o'clock In the afternoon." 

It seemed desirable to learn, if possible, where these 
meetings were held ; and it Is hoped that the following 

[25] 



evidence upon the point may prove of sufficient Interest 
to warrant Its Insertion here. 

It Is to be borne In mind that these meetings were Town 
Meetings, while the Suffolk Resolves were adopted at a 
Convention of delegates from all the Cities and Towns of 
the County of Suffolk, which then comprised nineteen 
towns. Including all of the present County of Norfolk. 
Wherever no place of meeting Is stated in the record, the 
presumption, of course, would be that these Town Meet- 
ings were held In whatever was then the official place for 
holding such meetings. 

On page 284 of Teele's "History of Milton" we find 
that: 

"Town meetings were held in the meeting house, or, 
in suitable weather, on the church green, until A.D. 
1836." 

The question, therefore, becomes — Where was the 
meeting house at the time of each of these meetings? 

Going back to page 277 (in the "History of Milton") 
we find the subdivision of Chapter X entitled "Meeting 
Houses." It Is here shown (p. 277) that " the first meet- 
ing house In use, before the establishment of the town, 
seems to have stood on or near the 'Country Heighway' 
at the head of Churchill's Lane"; that the "second meet- 
ing house" was erected in 167 1 on or near what is now 
Vose's Lane and Centre Street (p. 280) ; that the "third 
meeting-house" was built in 1728-1729. On page 282 
of the History we find that "this third meeting-house, 
. . . was built near Canton Avenue, in front of the pres- 
ent Unitarian Church. Its size was fifty-feet by forty, 
and twenty-eight feet high with a belfry." . . . 

This "third meeting-house" continued to be the meet- 
ing-house until replaced, upon the same plot of land, by 
the "Fourth Meetlng-House," which was authorized in 
1785 (p. 283) and dedicated January ist, 1788. This 
"fourth meeting-house," with various changes and Im- 
[26] 



provements, briefly described on page 284, is "the same 
edifice now occupied by tlie Unitarian Society." . . . 
(p. 284.) 

It thus clearly appears that the Milton Town Meetings, 
held from the passage of the Stamp Act in 1765 until 
after the close of the Revolutionary War, were held in 
the "third meeting-house," or if the weather was suitable, 
on the church green, upon the plot of ground partly cov- 
ered by the present church building of the First Parish 
of Milton. 

Here, then, picture to yourselves the men of Milton 
gathered together on June 27th, 1774, to choose those 
of their number best qualified to consider and determine 
upon and report "some proper measures for this Town to 
come into respecting the situation of publick affairs." 

Volumes of history have been written upon those "pub- 
lick affairs." A very few points out of the great mass 
of material available will help us toward viewing the 
situation from the standpoint of your townsmen of that 
day. 

The famous, or infamous, Stamp Act had been enacted 
in the spring of 1765. Of it a leading English historian* 
has written: 

"A Stamp Act to raise sixty thousand pounds produced 
a war that cost a hundred millions." 

Were he writing today he might add to the cost — and 
the loss of Colonies whose possessions less than a century 
and a half later were worth more than fifty thousand 
million pounds or two hundred and fifty thousand million 
dollars. 

The Act was followed in Massachusetts by several 
notable communications upon the subject between Gov- 
ernor Bernard and the House of Representatives. In 
the fall of 1765 the stamped papers to be used under the 
Act arrived here; and the Governor sent to the Council 

* Knight's '* History of England," Vol. VI, p. 271. 
[27] 



and House of Representatives on September 25th a mes- 
sage saying : 

"A ship is arrived in this harbor with stamped papers 
on board for the King's use in this province. . . . 

"As Mr. Oliver has declined the office of distributor of 
stamped papers, and cannot safely meddle with what are 
arrived, the care of them devolved to this government. 
... I have already laid this matter before the Council, 
and they have referred it to the General Court. I there- 
fore now apply to you, jointly, to desire your advice and 
assistance,"* etc. 

The next day the two houses sent an answer to the 
Governor; an answer so brief and conclusive it may be 
given here entire : 

"May it please your Excellency, The House having 
given all due attention to your Excellency's message of 
this day, beg leave to acquaint your Excellency, that as 
the stamped papers, mentioned in your message, are 
brought here without any directions to this government, 
it is the sense of the House that It may prove of ill con- 
sequence for them anyways to interest themselves in this 
matter. We hope, therefore, your Excellency will excuse 
us if we cannot see our way clear to give you any advice 
or assistance herein."* 

As the position of the House of Representatives was 
thus non-committal, and as the Stamp Act was to go into 
effect on November first, a meeting of the citizens of 
Milton was held on October 24th, 1765. The record of 
that meeting (which Teele says was held "on the green 
about the church") shows that it voted to choose a Com- 
mittee to draw up instructions to the Town's representa- 
tlv-e respecting the Stamp Act, and that Dr. Gardner was 
one of the three Committeemen chosen. The Committee 
drew up and presented instructions from which we quote 
as follows : 

* Massachusetts State Papers, p. 49. 

[28] 



"Instructions by the Freeholders and other Inhabitants 
of Milton to Stephen Miller, Esq., their present Repre- 
sentative. 

"Being sensibly affected by the calamitous circumstances 
to which this Country must soon be reduced by the execu- 
tion of the Stamp Act, unless by some means relieved, we 
think proper in the present distressed conjunction of 
affairs to give you the following instructions. 

"ist. That you promote and readily join in representing 
our grievances to the King and Parliament in a suitable 
manner, and if redress may easily be obtained it will be 
most acceptable to us — yet as the distress threatened must 
[if not prevented] bring Slavery and Ruin, we expect you 
to promote and join in measures which may relieve us, 
be the expense and consequences what they will." 

The Stamp Act was repealed; but other grievances con- 
tinued and multiplied. 

Eight years later, in January, 1773, the Town again 
held a meeting to instruct its representative. The meeting 
was held on January 4th and again appointed a similar 
Committee. The meeting was adjourned to January 8th, 
when the Committee presented a Report formulating in- 
structions to Mr. Josiah How, Representative for the 
Town of Milton. Out of the numerous grievances then 
known, four were selected and clearly stated. The Rep- 
resentative was thereupon instructed as follows : 

"We recommend and enjoin you to use your interest 
and influence in the House of Representatives as far as 
is consistent with the rights of the people to Petition his 
Majesty, and to remove the grievance we labor under. 
And in the meantime we depend upon your steadiness, 
prudence, and firmness, and that you give not up one jot 
or tittle of our rights, but dispute every inch of ground 
with the enemies of our Liberties and Freedom." 

The Town voted to accept this report as instructions to 
their Representative. 

[29] 



The Committee so reporting were John Adams (prob- 
ably Deacon John Adams), Col. William Taylor, Dr. 
Samuel Gardner, Capt. David Rawson, and Daniel Vose. 

We have thus shown the temper, firmness, and persist- 
ence of the Town from the passage- of the Stamp Act 
in 1765 to 1773; and history shows no faltering until the 
end, — Independence, — was reached. 

This, then, was the state of mind of the men of Milton 
when they met in June, 1774, to consider and act upon 
the ever increasing grievances which had reached a point 
demanding united action by all the Colonies in a Congress 
then appointed to meet in Philadelphia in the following 
September. 

Did the men of Milton then wait to see what the Con- 
gress would advise or do? 

Their action is the answer. Let us, then, turn to their 
Record. 

We have seen that on June 27th, 1774, they appointed 
a Committee "to consider & determine upon some 
proper measures for this Town to come into respecting 
the situation of ptibUck affairs." 

The scope of this Committee embraced the entire rela- 
tion between Great Britain and the Colonies; yet the 
Town of Milton, disdaining the role of follower, resolved 
to be a leader in the determination of how the awful situa- 
tion must be met. 

The Committee were given a month, until July 25th, 
to further study conditions and formulate their Report. 

Finally the Freemen and other Inhabitants of the Town 
of Milton met on July 25th, 1774, to receive and act 
upon the Committee's Report. 

The Town records have preserved the Report in full. 
It is found in the volume entitled "Milton Records, 1729- 
1775," at page 334. 

It begins with the statement of the precise purpose f or ■ 
which the Committee was appointed; yet the Committee, 

[30] 



— and rightly, we think, — prefaced its recommendations 
with a statement regarding the subject matter, saying: 

"We the Inhabitants of Milton acknowledge George 
the third to be our rightful Monarch — we feelingly de- 
clare ourselves to be his true & loyal Subjects — and 
next to the Horrors of Slavery we detest the thought of 
being seperated from our Parent State — we have been 
wont to glory in our connextion with our Mother Country 
— our Hearts have been ever warm with filial affection — 
and we are ready and willing on all proper Occasions to 
spend our Blood and Treasure in defence of his Majesties 
Crown & Dignity — and we are Equally ready and will- 
ing to spend our ALL in defending our own religious & 
civil Liberties when invaded by any humane Power." 

"But in defiance of the Laws of God and society — in 
direct Violation of Sacred Compact, the British Parli- 
nient have assumed a Power to alter and destroy, our free 
Constitution of Civil Government, and to introduce any 
Species of oppression whatever." 

Now follows the proposed action of the Town : 

"And being clearly of opinion that to withstand such 
assumed Power, and to oppose in a regular way; the 
Oppressive Measures which are carrying into Execution 
by such Power, is a duty we owe to God, to ourselves, 
and to unborn Millions, We therefore RESOLVE that 
we will unite with our Brethren THE SONS OF FREE- 
DOM IN AMERICA in any proper Measures, that may 
be adopted to defeat the late cruel & oppressive Acts of 
the British Parliment respecting America, and this Dis- 
tressed Province in particular,^ — -to extirpate the Idea of 
Tyranizing, which is so fondly fostered in the Bosoms of 
those in Power — and to secure to ourselves and to Pos- 
terity our invaluable Rights & Priveleges." 

"A Non-Consumption Agreement we think the most 
rational as it is the most Peaceful, But as Committees 
from the several Colonies on this Continent are soon to 

[31] 



meet and 'to deliberate & determine upon some wise 
& proper Measures for the recovery & Establishment' 
of American Liberties — and as we doubt not but the 
WISDOM OF AMERICA will fix upon such righteous 
measures as will Eventually prove not only the Salvation 
of this Extensive Continent but also the Permanentest 
Dignity of Great Britain, we therefore RESOLVE to 
commit our cause under God, to them, and to adopt such 
Righteous Measures as shall be by them recommended 
to the Colonies as necessary to regain & secure our free 
Constitution of Government." 

It should be observed that definite recommendations 
were omitted, apparently because the Committee knew 
of the coming Congress to be held in Philadelphia. Even 
so, the Committee placed on record here what it believed 
to be the most rational as well as the most peaceful meas- 
ure to secure the desired result, saying: "A Non-Con- 
sumption Agreement we think, the most rational as it is 
the most Peaceful." 

This is substantially all that was actively done by the 
Continental Congress at its first session. 

The conclusion, for the time being, reached by the 
Continental Congress before it adjourned October 26th, 
1774, was as follows: 

. . . "we have for the present, only resolved to pur- 
sue the following peaceable measures: 

"i. To enter into a non-importation . . . association. 

"2. To prepare an address to the people of Great 
Britain, and a memorial to the inhabitants of British 
America, and 

"3. To prepare a loyal address to his Majesty, agree- 
ably to Resolutions already entered into."* 

The great deliberation and care are shown in the addi- 
tional votes which were passed at the meeting. 

•Pitkin's " History of United States of America," Vol. I, p. l88, citing "Journals 
of Congress," Vol. I, pp. 28, 29, and 30. See also Ford's edition of Journals, Vol. I, 
P- 73- 

[32] 



"2d. Voted that said Report be read Paragraff by 
Paragraff and the accepting or not accepting each Para- 
graff to be put to Vote seperate. accordingly sd. Report 
was read, and each and every Paragraff was accepted. 

"3d. the question was put whether the Town do accept 
the whole of sd. Report and the Vote was in the Affirma- 
tive. 

"4th. Voted that Capt. David Rawson, Col. William 
Taylor, Doctor Samuel Gardner, Amariah Blake, & Mr. 
Ralph Houghton be a Committee to Correspond with 
the Committees of Correspondence in the Towns through 
this Province, and thro' America, as occasion may re- 
quire. 

"5th. Voted that the Committee send a letter to the 
Committee of Correspondence for Boston, thanking them 
for their Publick spirit and noble Zeal for the weal of 
America. 

"6th. Voted that the Town Clerk send an attested copy 
of the Transactions of this Town respecting Publick 
affairs, to the Committee of Correspondence for Boston. 

"7. Voted that this meeting be adjourned to the first 
monday in October next at two of the clock afternoon." 

These votes are worthy of special consideration. They 
are a material part of the circumstantial evidence show- 
ing the activity and influence of the Town of Milton in 
the making and issuing of the Suffolk Resolves. Ob- 
viously the Town recognized the indefiniteness, the lack 
of concrete determinations, so far as they could be ascer- 
tained from the subject matter of the report, as the Town 
was virtually silent upon all other active points save its 
recommendation as to a Non-Consumption Agreement. 
But obviously the Town did not intend to remain thus 
indefinite in pressing its contentions. After accepting 
each paragraph of the report and after accepting the 
whole of the report, the Town appointed another Com- 
mittee, — this time "to correspond with the Committees 

[33] 



of Correspondence in the Towns through this Province, 
and thro' America, as occasion may require." Note 
particularly the sixth vote, — "that the Town Clerk send 
an attested copy of the Transactions of this Town re- 
specting Publick affairs, to the Committee of Correspond- 
ence for Boston." This vote imposed a very considerable 
duty upon the Town Clerk. The vote was not merely 
to send an attested copy of the record of this particular 
meeting, but a copy of all of the transactions of this Town 
respecting public affairs. 

The last vote was that the meeting be adjourned to the 
first Monday in October next. 

But events moved faster than was anticipated on July 
25th. The Town could not wait until October; so 
another Town Meeting was held on the 2d of September, 
1774. The first vote passed at that meeting has so im- 
portant a bearing upon the Town relation to the Suffolk 
Resolves that it is here quoted in full : 

"ist. Voted that the present Committee of Correspond- 
ence, Viz. Capt. David Rawson, Col. William Taylor, 
Doctor Samuel Gardner, Amariah Blake, and Mr. Ralph 
Houghton be members to attend a County Convention to 
be held at Mr. Woodwards Innholder in Dedham on 
Tuesday the sixth day of this Instant at ten of the clock 
forenoon (or any other meeting of sd. Convention until! 
this Vote shall be disannulled by this Town) to deliber- 
ate & determine upon all such matters as the distressed 
circumstances of this Province may require." 

In the first place the Town then definitely knew that 
what it calls the County Convention was intended to be 
held in Dedham, on September 6th. The Town intended 
to be represented there, and by its strongest men. Note 
that Capt. David Rawson again heads the list of its Com- 
mittee; that the Committee again contains the names of 
Dr. Samuel Gardner and Mr. Ralph Houghton as well 
as that of Amariah Blake. 

[34] 



And now, will you call to mind that Captain Rawson 
and Dr. Gardner had been members of all of the Commit- 
tees as far back as the Committee of 1765 appointed in 
relation to the Stamp Act? Captain Rawson was one of 
the leading men of the Town, and in the year under con- 
sideration (1774) he represented Milton at the General 
Court. Teele says : "He was a prominent and important 
man during the eventful years of the Revolution. His 
name often appears as Moderator of those meetings when 
great principles were asserted and maintained."* 

Dr. Gardner was a graduate of Harvard of the Class 
of 1746, — twenty-eight years before the date of the Con- 
vention. 

In view of the gravity of the situation it is a safe con- 
clusion that Captain Rawson and Dr. Gardner, at least, 
and perhaps others of the Milton delegates occupied a 
large part of the time between their appointment on Sep- 
tember 2d and the final adoption of the Suffolk Resolves 
on September 9th in active work upon the making of the 
Suffolk Resolves. The Town of Milton, at meetings where- 
in these men were Committeemen, had made its record on 
many of the questions involved; and the Milton Town 
Clerk had been required to furnish information as to the 
Town's action upon public affairs. These delegates and 
particularly Dr. Gardner and Captain Rawson un- 
doubtedly had a clear, accurate, working knowledge of 
the demands and requirements of Milton and the points of 
difficulty between Great Britain and the Colonies. 

As Dr. Joseph Warren had obviously been selected for 
leadership in the Convention, it cannot be doubted that, — 
in the interim between the appointment of the Milton 
delegates and the presentation by Dr. Warren of his re- 
port at the adjourned meeting in Milton on September 9th, 
— he and Dr. Gardner were in frequent, if not in almost 
continuous, consultation and active cooperation upon the 

*Teele's "History of Milton," p. 107. 

[35] 



subject matter of that report. It is to be borne in mind 
that, in addition to the points of mutual interest and 
helpfulness, both were doctors and both were graduates 
of Harvard. These ties in all time are of the strongest. 

Moreover Dr. Gardner was an older graduate of Har- 
vard than Dr. Warren, the former graduating in 1746 
and the latter in 1759; and although Dr. Warren was the 
leader of the Convention, yet under the circumstances he 
must inevitably have consulted with Dr. Gardner in pre- 
paring the report, and must have been influenced largely 
by him especially because of his activity and experience 
in the matters involved from the very moment when the 
passage of the Stamp Act had become known in the 
Colonies. Moreover it should be noted here that Dr. 
Gardner and Colonel Taylor were appointed, at the Suf- 
folk Convention, upon the Committee with Dr. Warren 
to interview Governor Gage. 

The conclusion is inevitable, then, that the Suffolk Re- 
solves were very materially affected by the spirited and 
inspiring Milton resolves and the action taken thereunder, 
and by the active work of the delegates from Milton. 
Bearing in mind what we have seen of the form and sub- 
stance and timeliness of Milton's work, the inference is 
inevitable that the Suffolk Resolves were not only par- 
ticipated in by Milton, but were largely the result of the 
leadership of Milton. 

There is one more historical fact which, perhaps, 
should be considered as having given to Milton and to 
the position of its representative men special prominence 
at that particular period. 

The Milton Town Meeting leading up to the County 
Convention was begun on June 27, 1774. On the first 
day of that month Governor Hutchinson had taken his 
silent departure from the Colony, leaving his home on 
Milton Hill and going directly from there to his ship in 
Boston Harbor. John Adams said of him : "He had been 

[36] 



admired, revered, rewarded, and almost adored; and the 
idea was common that he was the greatest and best man 
in America."* 

Even after his reputation for loyalty was lost, his per- 
sonality so affected some of his fellow townsmen that, 
when it became known that he was to leave the country, 
they addressed a friendly letter to him. This was more 
than their liberty-loving townsmen could endure; and at 
the time when the work of the Suffolk Convention was 
being done, the citizens of Milton were contemplating 
the discipline that, before the month of September was 
over, they had inflicted upon the writers of that letter. 
The disaffection of Governor Hutchinson, as well as his 
great prominence, obviously not only gave importance to 
the action of the Town of Milton, but made it incumbent 
upon its loyal inhabitants to make up, if possible, by their 
own flawless devotion and unflagging work, for whatever 
of loss of reputation had come to their Town through the 
disaffection of its most distinguished citizen. 

All the foregoing circumstances concurred to impel 
Milton to active leadership in the Suffolk Convention, and 
will account for the fact that the adjournment on Septem- 
ber 6th in Dedham was to Milton, so that the final work 
of the Convention should be performed in and emanate 
from the Town whose leadership in the cause had raised it 
to this distinction. 

If you think it is going too far to speak thus of Mil- 
ton's leadership, read the words of Alden Bradford in 
his "History of Massachusetts" (p. 338) : 

"The resolutions adopted by the meeting of commit- 
tees at Milton, in the county of Suffolk, were more ex- 
plicit and spirited, than any which had been before pub- 
lished. They discovered a sensibility more alive to the 
distresses of the people, and more indignant at the con- 
duct of administration, than appeared in the proceedings 
of the other counties." 

*Teele, p. 419. 

[37] 



Here is the judgment by the collator of the Massachu- 
setts State Papers and the author of the "History of 
Massachusetts from 1764 to July, 1775," confirming our 
claim as to Milton's leadership; nay, anticipating it by 
nearly a century. 

This claim is made in the same spirit in which Brad- 
ford, in his "Introductory Remarks" to his collection of 
Massachusetts State Papers (p. 9), said as to Massa- 
chusetts : 

"We mean not to claim for Massachusetts all the merit 
of opposition to the arbitrary measures of Great Britain, 
nor all the influence which was exerted to effect the revo- 
lution. Other colonies were forward and decisive in dis- 
approving of the power claimed by the British ministry, 
of that period, over the people in these provinces; and 
readily united with Massachusetts in measures of re- 
dress." 

He then gives credit to Virginia, New York, and Penn- 
sylvania, and closes this branch of the subject by saying: 
"We believe, however, that the history of those times 
will abundantly shew, that the House of Representatives 
in Massachusetts was the most firm, systematic and per- 
severing in its efforts for the repeal of these oppressive 
acts, In exciting a just sense of our rights and our dangers, 
and in rousing the spirit of the people generally to make 
a solemn, decisive stand, which involved the alternative 
of liberty or death."* 

In effect we are as nearly as possible In like manner 
trying to say as to Milton that "we believe, however, that 
the history of those times will abundantly shew," that, 
especially in the proceedings leading up to the first Con- 
tinental Congress, while there was great activity along 
similar lines in a very large number of communities, the 
Town of Milton "was the most firm, systematic and 
persevering ... in exciting a just sense of our rights 

* Massachusetts State Papers, p. 9. 

[38] 



and our dangers, and in rousing the spirit of the people 
generally," as above stated by Bradford; and this was 
obviously the belief of Bradford, as shown by the above 
quotation from his "History of Massachusetts" (*) writ- 
ten four years after his collation of the Massachusetts 
State Papers, (f) 

Yet more : Bradford adds the human touch for which 
this writer was seeking. Having judged the work, he 
turns to the men who did it, saying: 

"It is deemed proper that the resolutions of the Suf- 
folk Convention be here given, In justice to the patriotic 
feelings and high purposes of men, who stood forth, at 
every hazard, in support of civil liberty; and to whom with 
others, the present generation in America are wholly in- 
debted for a most perfect condition of political and social 
freedom." {Ibid., p. 339.) 

Twice, at least, since these words were written has our 
political and social freedom been In imminent danger of 
shipwreck, — from the civil war; and from the recent 
world war. To us and to those who shall come after us, 
no stronger or better words can be addressed than those 
Issued from the beautiful spot by the old church, when 
Milton enjoined Its Representative, saying: 

"We depend upon your steadiness, prudence and firm- 
ness, and that you give not up one jot or tittle of our 
rights, but dispute every inch of ground with the enemies 
of our Liberties and Freedom," — to which we add only 
the words — whether these enemies be from without our 
borders, or within them. 

* Published 1822. 
t Published 18 18. 



[39] 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



011 699 930 4^ 



LIBRAR 



00 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



011 699 930 4 ^ 



peRimlfpe* 



